Bring Back Saddam?
The writers at The New Republic are known for staking out contrarian positions on the issues of the day, but Jonathan Chait's latest column takes contrarianism to a whole new level. In the column--entitled "Bring Back Saddam Hussein"--Chait argues, without any obvious signs that he is being cheeky or satirical, that we should consider restoring Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq:
Well guess what: it should be dismissed out of hand. It's an extraordinarily silly idea. Even assuming that Iraq under Saddam was preferable to Iraq now, Chait's idea of putting him back in charge is like suggesting that the best way to restore the Jets to their former glory is by putting Joe Namath back at quarterback.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Saddam Hussein did not rule Iraq by wielding magic powers. A dictator cannot control a country through the sheer force of his will. He needs armies and secret police and bureaucrats who answer to him, who fear him, who have succumb to his mystique. It took Saddam a long time to create that state apparatus, to build that mystique, and now it is gone, forever. That bell can't be unrung. The guy sitting in the jail cell awaiting execution is just that, a guy. Without the levers of power he built up over the years, he's nothing; he's just the man behind the curtain.
Chait ends his column with this:
Well, it's really not that complicated. We can't restore Saddam to power. It's just not possible. But let's indulge this nonsense for a second. Let's suppose we really were willing to replace Iraq's dysfunctional (though democratically elected) government with a strong man. Let's suppose we didn't care how that would look or what kind of message that would send. Why on earth would we choose the one guy we know to be a megalomaniacal mass-murderer with a history of invading neighboring countries? Wouldn't we at least try to create some sort of relatively benign authoritarian regime? If we choose to end our support for Iraq's democratically elected government, are we really compelled to go to the other extreme and affirmatively install a known homocidal lunatic to run the country?
Look, Iraq is a mess. There's no denying it. And whatever we do there, the results are going to be bad. But we can't just call "do-over." There's no way to restore the status quo ante even if we wanted to. And though the negative consequences of the invasion far outweigh the positive ones, the removal of Saddam was one of the few positive things that happened. Putting him back in power (even if that were magically possible) would be a disgusting and inexcusable act. He would immediately slaughter huge swathes of the Iraqi population, including anyone who even remotely helped us during our three year occupation of the country.
Now, I'll take Chait at his word that his column was intended more as a "thought experiment" than an actual proposal, but still, this is profoundly unserious stuff, and it's exactly the sort of quasi-masturbatory contrarianism that so often makes liberal intellectuals look foolish. It's not helpful, it's not insightful, and it's bound to be taken the wrong way.
Nobody seems to foresee the possibility of restoring order to Iraq. Here is the basic dilemma: The government is run by Shiites, and the security agencies have been overrun by militias and death squads. The government is strong enough to terrorize the Sunnis into rebellion but not strong enough to crush this rebellion.Like Digby, I assumed when I read the piece that Chait was just bad at satire. But Chait followed up his column with this post at The Plank and appearances on a number of cable news shows, where he explained that while he was not "100 percent serious," he didn't think the idea should be "dismiss[ed] out of hand."
Meanwhile, we have admirably directed our efforts into training a professional and nonsectarian Iraqi police force and encouraging reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. But we haven't succeeded. We may be strong enough to stop large-scale warfare or genocide, but we're not strong enough to stop pervasive chaos.
Hussein, however, has a proven record in that department. It may well be possible to reconstitute the Iraqi army and state bureaucracy we disbanded, and if so, that may be the only force capable of imposing order in Iraq.
Well guess what: it should be dismissed out of hand. It's an extraordinarily silly idea. Even assuming that Iraq under Saddam was preferable to Iraq now, Chait's idea of putting him back in charge is like suggesting that the best way to restore the Jets to their former glory is by putting Joe Namath back at quarterback.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Saddam Hussein did not rule Iraq by wielding magic powers. A dictator cannot control a country through the sheer force of his will. He needs armies and secret police and bureaucrats who answer to him, who fear him, who have succumb to his mystique. It took Saddam a long time to create that state apparatus, to build that mystique, and now it is gone, forever. That bell can't be unrung. The guy sitting in the jail cell awaiting execution is just that, a guy. Without the levers of power he built up over the years, he's nothing; he's just the man behind the curtain.
Chait ends his column with this:
I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others.
Well, it's really not that complicated. We can't restore Saddam to power. It's just not possible. But let's indulge this nonsense for a second. Let's suppose we really were willing to replace Iraq's dysfunctional (though democratically elected) government with a strong man. Let's suppose we didn't care how that would look or what kind of message that would send. Why on earth would we choose the one guy we know to be a megalomaniacal mass-murderer with a history of invading neighboring countries? Wouldn't we at least try to create some sort of relatively benign authoritarian regime? If we choose to end our support for Iraq's democratically elected government, are we really compelled to go to the other extreme and affirmatively install a known homocidal lunatic to run the country?
Look, Iraq is a mess. There's no denying it. And whatever we do there, the results are going to be bad. But we can't just call "do-over." There's no way to restore the status quo ante even if we wanted to. And though the negative consequences of the invasion far outweigh the positive ones, the removal of Saddam was one of the few positive things that happened. Putting him back in power (even if that were magically possible) would be a disgusting and inexcusable act. He would immediately slaughter huge swathes of the Iraqi population, including anyone who even remotely helped us during our three year occupation of the country.
Now, I'll take Chait at his word that his column was intended more as a "thought experiment" than an actual proposal, but still, this is profoundly unserious stuff, and it's exactly the sort of quasi-masturbatory contrarianism that so often makes liberal intellectuals look foolish. It's not helpful, it's not insightful, and it's bound to be taken the wrong way.
6 Comments:
Despite all the reasons you give here. There's an even greater personal cost to any such nonsense.
The fact that restoring SH to power would be the greatest insult to our troops ever done.
It would undermine our military's future resolve to engage in international conflict (which sometimes *IS* justified).
we don't want that, much less Iraq wanting it.
Well said...Chait wants this proposal to at least be taken seriously at the 'thought experiment' level, but it is just not possible to do so at any level. It's beyond incomprehensible...
I'm beginning to think the entire pundit class is out to lunch. Over the holiday, I had access to a television, and for some reason decided to watch Chris Matthews. General Batiste, one of the anti-Rumsfeld generals, was on there, maniacally repeating his opinion that the whole thing in Iraq is a "war against the jihadists," part of a "long war against people who want to destroy our way of life." How out of touch with reality can you be? Is Moqtada al-Sadr going to destroy my way of life? I don't get it. It was frightening to watch this guy talk.
- JLB
While Saddam may not come back how about this scenario:
Another "strong man" takes over and proceeds to be just as bad as Saddam - BUT is able to contain the sectarian violence through draconian measures!? Do we (the US)just stand by and let things happen to the Iraqi people or do we step in?? A real nightmare scenario especially if it is a Shiite dictator (with ties to Iran).
Re-assigning Hussein back into power is not really a good option. If so, what is the purpose of going war with Iraq if we’re just going to put Hussein back in power? If so, that means we are promoting more murder, as when Hussein was in power, he constantly murdered people in his power. Yes, the decision is a hard one, but we have to think of something else.
This premise is insane. We, as Americans, cannot realize the proposition of living life in a perpetual state of fear. Fear to speak our mind, fear to dissent, fear to wish for freedom where by we have the ability to change the course of our lives. Under Saddam's regime there was only one truth. Obey or die. The only way a government can sustain itself is by understanding the will of it's citizenry, which, if not followed, will lead to an internal implosion. Ultimately, indiviuals want the ability to follow their aspirations. If you impede that force, over time, a revolution will occur. At present, I need not recount history, but suffice to say, this theme is littered throughout it. America is the guiding to which all others should follow. To blame us for the ills of the world is, at best, intellectually dishonest, at worst, seditious.
God belss America!!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home